Text available as:

Formatting necessary for an accurate reading of this text may be shown by tags (e.g., <DELETED> or <BOLD>) or may be missing from this TXT display. For complete and accurate display of this text, see the PDF.

[Pages S2762-S2768]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
VETERANS CEMETERY BENEFIT CORRECTION ACT--Continued
Order of Procedure
Mr. McCONNELL. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the
mandatory quorum calls with respect to the cloture motions filed in
executive session today be waived.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Without objection, it is so ordered.
The Senator from Indiana.
National Police Week
Mr. DONNELLY. Madam President, as we observe National Police Week, I
rise today to honor our fallen law enforcement officers and to discuss
some of the ways we are working to make it safer for officers to do
their jobs and protect our communities.
[[Page S2763]]
Together, we honor and remember the lives of the law enforcement
officers we have lost in the line of duty. These men and women put
their lives on the line to protect our neighborhoods so that a Hoosier
senior can safely sit on his porch and watch his grandkids play in the
front yard or to ensure that working families can go to and from their
jobs in peace. They are on the frontlines battling the devastating
opioid epidemic that has plagued our State. Our police are the ones who
work with our communities and local leaders to help stem violence and
to help fight crime in our neighborhoods. They are the ones putting
themselves in harm's way every single day.
These officers are heroes. To their families, they are even more.
They are moms and dads, sisters and brothers, wives and husbands, and
their families pray that they come home safely at the end of every
shift. Sadly, as we know, that doesn't happen every time.
When we lose an officer, that loss is felt deeply, particularly by
their family and those who know them and love them. It is a grief that
is also shared throughout the entire law enforcement community and
throughout our State.
Since I began serving in the U.S. Senate in 2013, the Hoosier State
has lost nine officers in the line of duty. I want to take a moment to
pay tribute to these fallen heroes.
In September of 2013, Indianapolis Metropolitan Police Department
officer Rod Bradway was shot and killed while responding to a domestic
dispute call in a northwest Indianapolis apartment complex. A veteran
officer, he had served with the Wayne Township Fire Department for 10
years before working for 5 years on the IMPD force. Officer Bradway is
credited with saving the life of a domestic dispute victim and her baby
before losing his life protecting them.
In June 2014, Tipton County deputy sheriff Jacob Calvin was killed in
a car crash while responding to an accident. Deputy Calvin served his
community and our country in more ways than one. He was with the
department for 2\1/2\ years and had previously served his country in
Iraq in the U.S. Air Force and volunteered at the Kempton Fire
Department as a firefighter and EMT.
In July 2014, Indianapolis Metropolitan Police Department officer
Perry Renn was responding to reports of gunfire when he was shot and
killed. Officer Renn served more than two decades in the force. He was
a two-time recipient of the IMPD's Medal of Bravery Award, and he was
awarded the Medal of Honor and Purple Heart posthumously. Officer Renn
was also a U.S. Army veteran.
Also, in July of 2014, Patrolman Jeffrey Westerfield of the Gary
Police Department was found fatally shot while on duty in his patrol
car. He was killed on his 47th birthday. Patrolman Westerfield had
served the Gary Police Department for 19 years and, prior to that, in
the U.S. Army.
In September of 2014, Merrillville Police Department patrolman
Nickolaus Schultz was shot when investigating reports concerning an
evicted tenant. Patrolman Schultz passed away 2 days later due to his
wounds. Patrolman Schultz was only 24 years old and had been on the
Merrillville police force for 13 months.
In March of 2016, we lost Howard County sheriff's deputy Carl Koontz,
who was shot and killed while serving arrest and search warrants in
Russiaville in connection with a narcotics case. Deputy Koontz was just
26 years old. He had served more than 2 years with the Howard County
Sheriff's Department.
In July of 2017, Lieutenant Aaron Allen of the Southport Police
Department was shot while responding to a crash involving an overturned
vehicle. Hours before he was killed--and there is a picture of this
which tears your heart out--he walked his 5-year-old son to the bus for
his first day of kindergarten. He was a 6-year veteran with the
Southport Police Department and had previously been named the Officer
of the Year for saving two Hoosiers' lives. He also previously served
in the U.S. Air Force.
Tragically, this year we have lost two Hoosier police officers in the
line of duty. Boone County deputy sheriff Jacob Pickett was shot and
killed in March during a vehicle pursuit in Lebanon, IN. As the suspect
fled on foot, Deputy Pickett and Brick, his K-9 partner, followed in
pursuit. Deputy Pickett was shot as he rounded the corner of a
building. He served with the Boone County Sheriff's Office for 3 years
and previously with the Tipton County Sheriff's Office and the Marion
County Sheriff's Office.
Earlier this month, just a few weeks ago, Terra Haute police officer
Rob Pitts was shot and killed while investigating a homicide. As
Officer Pitts and other detectives approached the suspect's apartment,
the suspect opened fire, fatally injuring Officer Pitts. Officer Pitts
had served with the department for 16 years and with the Sullivan
Police Department for 6 years prior to that.
These nine brave officers embodied values that should make their
loved ones, their fellow officers, and every Hoosier incredibly proud.
We remember their sacrifice and their courageous service, and we are
thinking of their families, not only today, not only this week, but
year round.
As we pay our respects to those we have lost, we also have a solemn
duty to support the family members of those officers who never had the
chance to return home. We also must work to ensure that our officers
and law enforcement agencies have the resources needed to do their jobs
and keep our communities safe. Over the last few years, I have been
honored to introduce and to get signed into law bipartisan legislation
to help support law enforcement agencies and officers and to help with
grant efforts to provide our officers with necessary tools.
When officers and first responders are killed in the line of duty,
they often leave behind beloved families, including school-age
children. These families and children endure grief and trauma that we
can't even begin to imagine. We must do all we can to help the families
of our fallen officers and first responders, and this includes ensuring
that their children get a good education. That is why I helped to
introduce the bipartisan Children of Fallen Heroes Scholarship Act.
This allows the children of fallen first responders who pursue a
college education to have access to the maximum level of Federal Pell
grants authorized by law.
I was pleased to support the government funding bill that passed in
March, which included a provision based on the Children of Fallen
Heroes Scholarship Act.
Another critically important area we must continue to focus on is
helping to equip officers with lifesaving equipment. It is no secret
that our officers may face dangerous situations at any moment as they
respond to calls and do their job. That is why I supported the
bipartisan Bulletproof Vest Partnership Grant Program Reauthorization
Act. It was signed into law in May of 2016. It helps law enforcement
agencies purchase bulletproof vests. Having those vests can prevent
injuries for our law enforcement officers and can save lives.
We experienced this firsthand in 2014, when IMPD officer Greg Milburn
was shot in the line of duty. He credits his vest with his survival. In
the past 3 years, police departments across Indiana have received a
total of more than $1 million to help purchase bulletproof vests for
officers so they can all go home at the end of their shift every day.
Another essential role law enforcement officers play is working with
our community leaders, elected leaders, and law enforcement agencies to
tackle persistent crime and to improve neighborhood safety. I, along
with many of my colleagues, have long supported robust funding for the
Byrne Memorial JAG Program. This supports State and local law
enforcement agencies in their efforts to address the specific public
safety and criminal justice challenges facing our communities. This
program also supports information sharing on terror and criminal
threats, drug and human trafficking organizations, and sexual
predators.
Lastly, as officers go to work every day, they can encounter horrific
scenes and experience traumatic situations that are just impossible to
leave behind once the day is done. Last year, I authored and introduced
the bipartisan Law Enforcement Mental Health and Wellness Act with my
friend and colleague from Indiana, Senator Todd Young. Our bill was
signed into law by President Trump in January. It helps law enforcement
agencies enhance or
[[Page S2764]]
establish mental health services for officers. It provides tools to
help officers deal with mental health challenges and to combat the
stigma associated with addressing those issues. This legislation also
includes funding that the Department of Justice can use to initiate
peer-mentoring pilot program grants for local law enforcement agencies.
Our law enforcement officers deserve our support. They deserve it to
ensure they can do their job safely and effectively. I will continue to
work on bipartisan efforts to help our officers and their families.
In the meantime, this National Police Week--this special week we have
here every year--let's take a moment to pray for those fallen heroes,
for their families, and for their fellow officers. They own our hearts
for all they do for us. They protect our families, our children, and
our communities, and they put their lives on the line every day for us,
not knowing if they are going to come home safely or not. But still
they go forward. Still they go out. Still our officers who are our
friends and who protect us keep us safe every day.
They earned and have always kept all of our respect and of everyone
in our communities. They have our love. They have our devotion and our
deepest appreciation for everything they do every day.
May God bless all of these officers. May God bless Indiana, and may
God bless the United States of America.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Kansas.
McCain Mission Act
Mr. MORAN. Madam President, many of us this afternoon had the
opportunity to see a screening of the HBO documentary ``For Whom the
Bell Tolls,'' a tribute to Senator McCain. It is clearly a tribute, but
it is also the story of his life and an expose of his sacrifice for his
country. It is a moving story of Senator McCain's life and an
inspiration to me and, I assume, to my colleagues for the commitment
that he has made to always try to do right--putting his country above
self.
I have had the honor of working with Senator McCain for the last
several years in regard to legislation trying to improve the
circumstances that our Nation's veterans face as they access healthcare
within the Department of Veterans Affairs.
Senator McCain and I introduced legislation to accomplish a number of
things related to this, particularly the Veterans Choice Program.
Choice was passed back about 2014, at a time in which the VA was in a
crisis and a time in which the veterans they were created to serve were
harmed by decisions made at the Department of Veterans Affairs. The
problems were highlighted in Senator McCain's home city of Phoenix at
the Phoenix VA, in which a number of veterans may have died as a result
of the inability to access healthcare in a timely fashion.
The solution to the problems exhibited in other places across the
country--which included false waiting lists, in which the VA had
determined a list that was not real but demonstrated that veterans who
had no idea they had an appointment to see someone at the VA had an
appointment, to camouflage the failures and the slowness of the
Department of Veterans Affairs--resulted in a unanimous decision by the
Senate to create a program called Choice.
Choice creates the opportunity for a veteran, under certain
circumstances, to access healthcare in their home community at the
veteran's discretion. This program, in my view, has significant
potential to alter the opportunities that a veteran has to be cared
for.
Those who served our country deserve the very best, and we want to
make certain that happens both inside the VA and with a program that
allows veterans to choose healthcare outside the Department of Veterans
Affairs.
The Veterans Choice Program has expired since 2014. We have
reauthorized it in a number of instances. I think three, perhaps four
times. It needed funding, and we reauthorized the funding. Choice was a
limited program in which for the veteran to qualify to receive Choice
care in the community at their discretion and at their option was
determined by whether or not that veteran lived within 40 miles of a VA
facility or whether the VA could provide the services within 30 days of
the time the veteran needed that care.
The committee here in the Senate has worked for a long time trying to
reauthorize the Veterans Choice Program. It has been my position, with
Senator McCain, that just to reauthorize Choice would be a significant
error on our part and that in the authorization process, we should make
community care work better for veterans.
I judge whether or not the VA is providing the care and services that
our veterans need by what you would call casework--what we do on behalf
of our constituents who have a challenge or a problem with a Federal
agency or department. Our casework regarding veterans who are
attempting to access care in the community has been exponential.
I checked the other day. At the moment, we have 80 cases for veterans
in Kansas--not all related to this particular program but 80 veterans
who contacted me and my staff and said: I need your help. Since I have
been a Senator, that number is 2,650 veterans who have contacted me or
my staff saying: I need your help. So when it came time for the Senate
Veterans' Affairs Committee to begin the legislative process of
determining how to alter the program, how to reform it, and,
particularly, how to extend the program, I wanted to make certain that
my input was based upon what veterans were telling me about how the
program did and didn't work.
Our committee passed a bill out of the Veterans' Affairs Committee
months ago. That bill was passed by our committee on a vote of 14 to 1.
I was the one opponent. I say that for my colleagues today--some of
whom have asked my view, some of whom I hope were interested in my
view, and even those who may not care. I want them to know that the
bill now in front of the Senate--and the majority leader just filed the
proceedings for us to have a cloture vote next week on this
legislation--is legislation I support. It does do something more than
just extend Choice. It creates opportunities for that program to work
much better. Most importantly to me was the issue of who decides
whether or not a veteran has the option of choosing community care.
The legislation that we will consider next week allows for the
Department of Veterans Affairs--in a sense, the Secretary of the
Department of Veterans Affairs--to remain the gatekeeper. The VA has
the opportunity to make the decision about who gets to have community
care, but different than today, when the only criteria is 40 miles or
30 days. We create access standards in this legislation that the VA
must abide by in determining whether or not a veteran can have care in
the community, and that is a significant difference.
We had all kinds of challenges with the 40 miles and 30 days. We
changed the definition of what a facility was in order to get the VA to
allow individuals to have access to care at home. People may recall
that the VA wanted to count the 40 miles as the crow flies. In addition
to other challenges that the VA put in front of veterans, we have
eliminated those and created a standard by which the VA must abide. So
while the gatekeeper remains the Department of Veterans Affairs, it is
not in the total discretion of the Department of Veterans Affairs. They
must abide by criteria, and if the veteran believes he or she is denied
care in the community, that veteran has the opportunity to appeal based
upon a number of standards, including best medical interest of the
veteran.
We are changing a program in which the VA made decisions that often
denied veterans the access to care in their community that veteran
asked for, and we are saying: You now asked the VA for permission. The
VA has to make a decision to grant or deny that permission, but they
can't do it solely at the discretion of the Secretary of Veterans
Affairs. They must abide by criteria. That is a significant
improvement.
Secondly, if you feel like you have received the wrong decision, you
can appeal that decision.
Today--and we have plenty of examples of this in Kansas--when a
veteran is denied community care by the Department of Veterans Affairs,
their only appeal is to their Senator or their Member of Congress, in
which we then have a new case to once again try to work our way through
the Department
[[Page S2765]]
of Veterans Affairs: Why did you deny this veteran his or her choice to
have community care?
This bill is a significant improvement. It satisfies the concerns I
had; my view that early on, we were mostly just trying to extend Choice
as it was--as it is, and now this replaces it with really a
circumstance in which veterans have rights, have standards the
Department of Veterans Affairs must comply with.
In addition to the issues of who can access care, who is the
gatekeeper, and determining the standards, this bill merges and
modernizes all community care programs and puts them all in one
category at the Department of Veterans Affairs instead of multiple
programs. It simplifies it.
We have had too many instances in which, if you didn't access care
under one program, you might be able to apply for another. This changes
the circumstances that so many of my veterans have complained to me
about, in which they get an authorization from the Department of
Veterans Affairs, and they are allowed to see a physician in their home
community, but then when they need lab work or an x ray--something that
should be related to that visit--they have to go back to the Department
of Veterans Affairs to get additional consent. This is more in the line
of necessary procedures that should follow: one authorization that
includes the things that are medically necessary for that appointment
with the physician or that admission to a hospital. It just makes sense
that these other things would be necessary if that physician whom the
VA referred you to believes them to be necessary. It establishes a
framework for the VA to build a high-performing healthcare network, and
it implements new coordination so the veteran and the VA work together
to determine what is in the best interest of that veteran.
It is something I have cared about a lot. We required that in the
original Choice Act; that the healthcare provider be paid Medicare
rates. Those of us who come from rural States recognize there are
various rates under Medicare, and for our smallest hospitals, they are
entitled to cost-based reimbursement. That is not happening under the
current legislation, the law today. This legislation corrects the
problem, keeping the circumstance more likely in which our hospitals
and doctors would be financially able to see a veteran and provide that
care.
This is not privatizing the VA. The VA serves a valuable and useful
role. Many veterans choose to have care at the Department of Veterans
Affairs, at their hospitals, and at their clinics. Again, it is the
veterans' choice where he or she wants to go.
For those of us who come from rural places, the distances in which a
veteran must travel, in many instances, have eliminated the ability for
that veteran to ever access care from the VA. The VA has programs that
are important to veterans--traumatic brain injury, amputation, things
that may not ever be as available or as desirable in the community.
This legislation is supported by every veterans service organization
I know of. We have come to the point in which it is time for us to pass
this legislation. Memorial Day is approaching. The President has asked
this legislation be approved prior to Memorial Day. We think it is
appropriate to honor those who served our country at this point in May,
where Memorial Day is around the corner, to provide the care they are
asking for.
The other aspect of why it is important for us to move on the
legislation now is that the funding for Choice and community care has
diminished. I serve on the Appropriations Committee that funds the
Department of Veterans Affairs, and it is necessary for us to get the
money in place. The VA is already rationing care for those veterans who
use Choice today, and this legislation puts the necessary dollars in
place for Choice to continue in its new reformed and improved status.
It would be a shame for us to miss this opportunity. It would be
wrong for our veterans. It would diminish the number of people who
access care at the Department of Veterans Affairs and do so at a time
in which the needs are great for those who have served our Nation.
Again, referring to my colleague from Arizona, Senator McCain, we
would honor him if we answer this call to do our duty to see that our
veterans are cared for, that promises are kept.
I appreciate the response that was given when the bill was suggested
to be named in honor of Senator McCain. Both the House chairman and the
House committee, along with Senator Isakson, the chairman here, and
Senator Tester, the ranking member, have agreed to do that. This
legislation is now known as the McCain Mission Act. Our colleague, for
whom there are so many reasons to pay honor and tribute to, would
receive another honor for his service to our Nation but of equal
importance, his service to other veterans.
For so many reasons, it is time for us to act, to pass the McCain
Mission Act, and do so with the promptness that has followed long
deliberations to try to get it right.
In my view, too often the U.S. Senate, the Congress, politics, and
government, in general, just put a bandaid on to get by. This
legislation is significantly different than doing something to get by.
It would improve the quality of life for those who serve our Nation. We
should honor them, as we honor Senator McCain, prior to Memorial Day,
at the end of next week.
I thank you for the opportunity to address the Senate.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Ohio.
Mr. PORTMAN. Madam President, I want to first commend my colleague
from Kansas for his passion for our veterans and for his hard work on
legislation that is really going to help in Ohio and around the country
to ensure they have the care they deserve and also for his mention of
Senator McCain, who is a true national hero. He now has a documentary
about him on HBO, as some of us saw earlier today. It will soon be
available for everyone to see. It is very powerful.
STOP Act
Madam President, we heard earlier from one of my colleagues from
Indiana who talked about the fact that this is National Police Week. A
number of us have come to the floor to talk about our incredible men
and women in uniform back home who protect us every day through their
dedication, their public service, and it is appropriate to commend
them.
I will say, as I have talked to police officers from Ohio this week,
one issue came up again and again that doesn't get the attention it
deserves; that is, the influx of synthetic opioids, like fentanyl, and
the effect it is having on our law enforcement community, our first
responders, in general, and, for that matter, all of our citizens. What
they told me is, this is the issue that is creating so much crime in
our communities. This is the issue that is filling our courtrooms and
our jails.
One police officer I met with this week is a corrections officer at a
jail in one of our urban areas in Ohio. I asked him to just give me an
estimate. What percentage of the inmates in this jail are there because
of the drug crisis and specifically the opioid issue?
He thought for a minute, and he said: Probably 90 percent--90
percent. Some are there because of selling drugs, some of them are
there, though, because they have committed a crime while they were
trying to get the money to be able to pay for their habit--so it is
shoplifting; it is fraud; it is burglary. This issue is now everywhere.
The last year for which we have good information would be 2016. We
have a lot of information nationally on that, and 2016 was the worst
year on record in terms of overdose deaths attributable to these
synthetic drugs coming into our country. Guess what. Almost certainly,
2017 is worse.
As one example, the coroner for Franklin County, OH--that is the
Columbus area in Ohio, our fastest growing city--recently released
their 2017 overdose report for the county. Franklin County had 520
overdose deaths in 2017. That is a 47-percent increase from 2016. So
2016 was the worst year on record; 2017, almost a 50-percent increase
in overdose deaths. By the way, sadly, those overdose deaths are on
track again this year to reach a record.
Two-thirds of those overdose deaths in Columbus, OH, Franklin County,
involve fentanyl, which is this synthetic opioid that is overtaking our
communities in Ohio. Think about that. Two-thirds of those overdose
deaths last year in Columbus, OH, were due to fentanyl.
[[Page S2766]]
Just last week, a Cleveland man was sentenced to more than 11 years
in Federal prison for selling fentanyl that resulted in a 46-year-old
Ohio man's death. Earlier this month, a man in Lorain, OH, was
convicted of selling fentanyl, resulting in a 23-year-old's death.
This drug and the opioid crisis knows no bounds. It is in every age
group. It is in every ZIP Code. It is everywhere.
Unbelievably, this fentanyl drug--a synthetic form of heroin, a
synthetic form of opioids--we are told by the experts is coming into
our country through the U.S. mail system. This is shocking to me, and
it should be something we can do something about. This is a Federal
agency, after all.
Unlike other drugs--let's say heroin or even crystal meth, which tend
to come over land, mostly from Mexico--this drug primarily is coming
through the U.S. mail system from one country primarily--China. It is
coming from laboratories in China, where some evil scientist is mixing
this deadly brew and then sending it through the U.S. mail into our
communities. It is being shipped directly into your community in small
packages. These are the deadliest drugs we have ever experienced, and
they are being shipped directly through a Federal agency.
What is fentanyl? It is 50 times more powerful than heroin. It is
inexpensive. It is readily available now in many communities. It is the
new scourge, killing more people in my State of Ohio last year than any
other drug. We need to do all we can to stop more of these poisons from
entering our communities. At the very least, if we can't stop it all,
let's raise the price because the cost of this drug, being so
inexpensive and it being so powerful, is one of the things that is
driving these overdoses and these deaths.
It is not just overdoses. It is people whose lives are getting off
track, families breaking apart, community dysfunction, people leaving
work. It is the babies who are being born with this neonatal absence
syndrome, so they have to go through withdrawal as little babies whom
you can hold in your two hands. It is affecting our communities in so
many ways.
There is a new study out showing that of the men who are out of the
workforce altogether--probably 8\1/2\ million men--roughly half of them
are taking pain medication on a daily basis. When pushed, two-thirds
say it is prescriptions. What does that mean? This means it is
affecting one of the big issues we are all hearing about back home,
which is lack of a workforce. Well, here you have millions of Americans
who are off track because of this issue. So, yes, it is tragic and
unbelievable that over 60,000 Americans a year are dying from
overdoses, but it is even worse than that. That is the tip of the
iceberg, in a way. There are so many other aspects of this that are
affecting the communities we represent in the Chamber.
With regard to fentanyl, this new scourge, we conducted an 18-month
investigation in the Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations, which I
chair. We did this because we are hearing more and more about fentanyl.
We wanted to look into how fentanyl is being shipped into the United
States and what can be done at the Federal level to stop it. The
investigation revealed just how easy it is to purchase fentanyl online
and have it shipped to the United States. It is so easy, in fact, we
found that most of the overseas providers essentially guaranteed
delivery if you use the U.S. mail system.
Through a simple Google search, our staff found hundreds of websites,
many affiliated with Chinese labs openly advertising fentanyl for sale.
We went undercover, using an investigator from the Department of
Homeland Security to help us find some of these websites. We found that
in several cases--seven different cases--individuals who receive
fentanyl through some of these websites had died from an overdose
shortly after receiving their fentanyl. We were able to find that the
sellers would tell you to ship the drugs through the Postal Service,
not a private carrier like FedEx or DHL or UPS or any other private
carrier. As we have learned in our investigation, this is because the
Postal Service, unlike these private carriers, is not required to have
what is called advanced electronic data as part of the package. In
other words, law enforcement is not given information on these
packages.
The data that is in this advance electronic information is the name
and address of the sender, the name and address of the person who is
receiving the package, and what the contents of the package are. How
does this help? Well, this gives law enforcement the ability to use big
data to find out what region it is coming from--again, if there is a
region in China that is sending a lot of this poison, they will know
that; where it is going; if it is going to a particular post office box
where they have reason to believe that it might be suspect, or perhaps
it is going to an abandoned warehouse.
The information about what is in the package obviously is very
interesting to Customs and Border Protection. They need this help. Why?
Because they can't otherwise identify suspicious packages. There are
900 million packages a year now coming into the United States through
the mail system--900 million packages. It is like finding a needle in a
haystack.
Yes, we need better detection equipment, and we have actually passed
legislation recently do to that. We have additional legislation to be
able to hire more individuals to help detect whether these packages
have opioids contained within them. But this advance information that
you can have on the package is so incredibly important, and it is the
reason the traffickers are saying: Don't send it through a private
carrier; send it through our own government agency because we think we
can guarantee delivery there. It is a glaring loophole in our screening
process, and it is a national security threat. It is a clear example of
where Congress ought to come together on a bipartisan basis and enact
Federal policies to fix this flaw.
Shortly after the tragic events of 9/11--September 11, 2001--Congress
did pass a law in this regard, and the law did require all private
carriers to obtain advance electronic data on all international
packages entering the United States and did require them to share that
data with law enforcement. The concern was not just contraband or
opioids; it was also explosives. They passed that legislation here in
Congress because they knew it was important to have law enforcement get
that information.
With regard to the post office, they made it optional. Congress
required the Postmaster General and the Secretary of the Treasury to
determine whether the post office should also collect such data. This
was 17 years ago. That determination was never made. They did not
follow the law. From one administration to the next, to the next, to
the next, there was no determination, which, of course, has resulted in
no data requirements for the Postal Service. Again, that was in 2002.
For about 14 years, the Postal Service sat by and did nothing on this
issue, knowing that this was a loophole, that this was an opening in
the law for traffickers and others to be able to send things into our
country. To me, that is unacceptable.
In the last couple of years, after pressure from Congress and,
frankly, our investigation that I talked about earlier and the hearings
we held talking about this issue in the Permanent Subcommittee on
Investigations, the Postal Service did actually start to do what, in my
view, they should have done starting 16 years ago, but unfortunately
what they are doing is not nearly enough. They have begun getting some
data on some international packages, but the efforts are inadequate.
One hundred percent of private carriers' packages have to have it, and
do, and they provide it to law enforcement.
The U.S. Postal Service last year began an effort to get more of this
advance electronic data, but they received it, based on testimony they
provided to us, on only about 36 percent of the international packages.
This means that the United States received more than 318 million
packages last year that had no screening on them, no information for
law enforcement to be able to identify the package.
We also found that the quality of the data that was provided by the
Postal Service was inadequate in many cases and therefore not helpful
to law enforcement. That is again based on testimony before our
committee.
Even when the Postal Service conducted a pilot program to screen for
[[Page S2767]]
drugs, they only presented 80 percent of the packages targeted by
Customs and Border Protection for inspection. So even when they did
have information on it and law enforcement said ``I want that
package''--again, using big data in figuring out what might be a
suspicious package--only 80 percent of them were even delivered to law
enforcement out of the 36 percent that had electronic data. So the
other 20 percent of those suspicious packages were allowed to go into
circulation, into our communities, without having any screening.
Frankly, it has been a challenge to get the post office to address
this problem on their own. We are talking about 900 million packages a
year. And they have funding problems. I get that. But, folks, this is a
crisis. It is a true epidemic. It is the No. 1 killer in my State.
It is time for Congress to act. People are dying every day because of
these synthetic drugs. How many more of our people have to die before
our own Postal Service takes the measures that we know can be taken to
stop these poisons?
The STOP Act is a bipartisan bill I introduced with Senator Amy
Klobuchar, a Democrat from Minnesota, that will close this loophole and
therefore help stop these deadly drugs from entering our communities.
Senator Klobuchar was on the floor earlier this afternoon and wanted to
speak at this time about the legislation. She had to catch a plane to
get back to her home State of Minnesota, but I appreciate her
partnership on this issue and her promotion of our dealing with this
issue here on the floor of the U.S. Senate.
The STOP Act is very simple, and it is common sense. It is going to
hold the U.S. Postal Service to the same standard as these private mail
carriers that we talked about and require that they get advance
electronic data not on 36 percent but on 100 percent of packages
entering the United States--and good data--and then present that to law
enforcement.
We are not punishing the Postal Service or forcing them to jump
through unnecessary hoops. We are simply saying that, given the crisis
we face, the U.S. Postal Service, a Federal agency, should require the
same types of advance electronic data from foreign countries that
private mail carriers do, and we give the Postal Service a year to do
it.
By the way, when I talked to mail carriers about this issue, when I
talked to postal inspectors about this issue, certainly when I talked
to Customs and Border Protection individuals about this issue, they all
agreed. Who wouldn't? They have families too. They understand. This
issue needs to be addressed, and it needs to be addressed urgently.
The United States of America provides this advance electronic data on
90 percent of our packages that we send to other countries, so we are
not asking for something that we are not doing. It makes sense all
around the world. It makes sense here, and it will help save lives.
Thirty-three of my Senate colleagues--20 Republicans, 12 Democrats,
and 1 Independent--have signed on as cosponsors of this legislation.
The Presiding Officer today, who is from West Virginia--her State has
been getting hit really hard like Ohio. She has a passion for this
issue. She knows that we need to do all we can do to stop this poison
from coming in.
The legislation has the support of a broad cross-section of this
body. It has also been endorsed by President Trump's opioid commission.
This is a commission that he formed to look at answers, and this is one
of their specific recommendations: The STOP Act--pass it.
Just this week, the Secretary of Homeland Security, Kirstjen Nielsen,
reaffirmed her support for this measure.
The House companion bill has 271 cosponsors--more than half of the
U.S. House of Representatives.
By the way, asking every country for this kind of information, this
advance electronic data, is not just common sense, it is also
reasonable. The United States provides that data on nearly all of our
packages that go into China, as an example, so why shouldn't China do
that for us? At least one country--Sweden--recently returned packages
from China that did not comply with Swedish postal rules on providing
this information. So the Postal Service's argument that they have to
accept and deliver packages from foreign posts under treaty obligations
is simply not the case. If a country doesn't play by our rules, we can
simply choose to return their packages. By the way, threatening to do
so is all we need to do because these countries then will comply. We
have the largest market in the world. We are the biggest economy in the
world. We just have to insist on it.
China is already starting to recognize the importance of providing
this data for access to U.S. markets. For example, as of early this
year, when we published our report from the Permanent Subcommittee on
Investigations, we had information that China had already provided
electronic data on roughly 50 percent of the packages headed to the
United States. So this notion that somehow China can't do it--of course
they can.
Yesterday, instead of marking up this bipartisan STOP Act I talked
about, the STOP Act legislation, the House Ways and Means Committee
considered a weaker alternative to our bill. Apparently, they were
hearing from some at the Postal Service who don't want Congress to
require them to get this electronic data within 1 year, which we think
is not just doable but reasonable. They don't want Congress to put in
place penalties if they don't get that data, and our legislation, yes,
has penalties.
The Postal Service doesn't mind if Congress simply recommends that
they get the data, but remember, Congress recommended that way back in
2002. That was 16 years ago. And until very recently, just the last
couple of years, the Postal Service did nothing to provide that crucial
information.
Unfortunately, the weaker alternative approved by the committee
yesterday would eliminate the real, enforceable, and immediate
requirement that the Postal Service provide law enforcement with the
information they need to identify and stop the shipment of deadly
synthetic drugs into our communities.
In particular, the STOP Act requires that within 1 year, the Postal
Service secure advance electronic data on 100 percent of packages here
in the United States and transmit that data to law enforcement, to
Customs and Border Protection. The version reported out yesterday gives
the Postal Service 4 years--4 years. Remember the No. 1 killer in my
State and in many States. Last year, there was an increase from the
year before, and this year looks worse again. We can't wait 4 years. We
don't have to.
The version they reported out also requires only 95 percent of the
packages to have that data.
In addition, this alternative to the STOP Act that was reported out
yesterday actually gives the Federal Government the authority to waive
the requirements in the STOP Act that would get advance electronic data
if it is in the ``national security interest of the United States.''
They can waive it altogether. I am struggling to think of a time when
knowing less about what is coming into our country is in our national
security interest.
As the permanent subcommittee investigation's report from January
makes clear, there are hundreds of millions of packages coming into
this country through the Postal Service every year with little or no
screening at all. That is frightening. This loophole is allowing drug
traffickers to exploit our own Federal Government, and we can't allow
this status quo to continue.
The organization Americans for Securing All Packages--ASAP--issued a
statement last week urging the Ways and Means Committee to ``reject
this weakened alternative, and pass the STOP Act, a bill with 271
bipartisan cosponsors.''
Just yesterday, Shatterproof--another addiction advocacy group
fighting against the opioid addiction issue--issued a similar statement
calling on Congress to pass the STOP Act, not the watered-down version.
I want to say today on the floor that I very much appreciate the fact
that Ways and Means Committee Chairman Kevin Brady has acknowledged
these concerns and has committed to working with us to resolve these
differences during the legislative process. I know him. I know he is a
passionate advocate of addressing this issue. He wants
[[Page S2768]]
to reverse the opioid epidemic, and he wants this to work, so I look
forward to working with him.
I particularly appreciate the House coauthors of the STOP Act,
including Representatives Mike Bishop and Bill Pascrell. I talked to
Mr. Bishop today, and I know his passion to deal with this issue as
well.
The coalition of support for the STOP Act, by the way, also includes
the Fraternal Order of Police. I talked about the fact that police
officers understand the dangers of this. By the way, to give an example
of how dangerous this is to them, it is not just the overcrowding of
our prison system and the courts and the crime that is being committed,
it is a personal danger to them as law enforcement officers.
In East Liverpool, OH, a police officer pulled over two men for a
traffic violation, and he noticed there was a powdery substance in the
car. Being alert, he put on his mask and his gloves and arrested those
two gentlemen because the powdery substance was fentanyl. They had
stupidly tried to spread it around the car. He took them down to the
station and booked them.
After he booked them, he was talking to his fellow officers, and he
looked down on his shirt and noticed a few white flecks. So, as anyone
would do, he took his hand and flicked the pieces of something white
off of his shoulder. It was fentanyl. That exposure to his fingers
caused him to drop, unconscious, on the floor. This is a big guy, 6
feet 2 inches, over 200 pounds, and in good shape. He overdosed and
nearly died.
As his police chief said, if we had not been there to apply Narcan--
not once, twice, or three times but five and six times, having taken
him to the emergency room--if we hadn't been there, he didn't think he
would have made it. Think if he would have gone home to hug his kid
without brushing those flecks off his shoulder.
Our police officers are subject to this all the time, as are other
first responders. It is appropriate that police organizations around
the country are strongly in support of the STOP Act. So are the
National Association of State EMS Officials, the U.S. Chamber of
Commerce, and anti-opioid groups like Shatterproof, which I talked
about, but also groups like SAFE, or Stop Addiction Fatality Epidemic,
and other groups which have said: This is crazy; we have to stop this
stuff from coming into our communities and, again, at a minimum, get
the price up, because part of the reason it is spreading so much is
that it is not just deadly and powerful, but it is inexpensive.
There is a strong bipartisan consensus that this bill, the Senate
STOP Act, is absolutely needed to help combat the wave of opioid
addiction and overdose deaths on the front end, by keeping some of
these more deadly drugs from ever entering our communities in the first
place.
This is a step we can take in the Senate to make accessing these
deadly and inexpensive synthetic drugs more difficult.
The STOP Act will make life a little easier for the people of Ohio
and across the country who are increasingly fatally overdosing or being
unknowingly exposed to these deadly drugs.
Of course, this is only one part of combating the opioid epidemic. We
understand that. We passed legislation here, which I coauthored, that
increases treatment options, does more in terms of prevention, provides
longer term recovery, and helps to provide our police officers and
other first responders with the Narcan that is needed to reverse the
effects of overdoses.
But, to my colleagues, this one is common sense. Stopping more of
these deadly drugs from ever entering the country in the first place
and raising the price of these drugs will make a difference and will
save lives.
Let's pass this legislation. Let's work with the House to be sure it
is legislation that will be effective immediately to be able to stop
the increasing danger these opioids are causing in our communities all
around the country.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Blunt). The majority leader.
Unanimous Consent Agreement--Executive Calendar
Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, as in executive session, I ask
unanimous consent that at a time to be determined by the majority
leader, in consultation with the Democratic leader, the Senate proceed
to executive session for consideration of the following nomination:
Executive Calendar No. 593. I ask consent that there be 4 hours of
debate, equally divided in the usual form, and that following the use
or yielding back of time, the Senate vote on the nomination with no
intervening action or debate; that if confirmed, the motion to
reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table; that the
President be immediately notified of the Senate's action; that no
further motions be in order; and that any statements relating to the
nomination be printed in the Record.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
____________________